Jump to content

Talk:Phone call to Putin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge request

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Mikheyev v. Russia, for which there was also support in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinjugend_(2nd_nomination) and which the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination) also noted that renaming should be done at the article talk page, for which there is clear consensus for merging. It should be noted, that this is not the same as deleting the article, but rather merging of material to a relevant article where it is given more context. The article name will become a redirect. --Russavia Dialogue 13:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, there are doubts that Russavia had the rights to close the discussion, I agree that consensus is quite obvious and determined correctly Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to keep the information in this article as notable enough. However the title fails in my opinion as a tendentious neologism. There is an article about a notable court case Mikheyev v. Russia which has essentially same information and where seem to be no issues. Currently, having two articles with the same information amounts to POV forking. (Igny (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Support as per previous discussion. --Russavia Dialogue 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the content is already essentially the same, a redirect should suffice, unless someone wants to delete a history of reverts of this page. (Igny (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support conversion of this version into a redirect and keep Russavia's renamed version. Although the sources says the expression is common, it isn't. I think that the report in the media that the name was widespread was the retelling of an urban legend. The only reports in English and Russian refer to this one case. All the information here is in the other. None of the information will be lost. The case is much more notable than a slang term used for one instance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please do not suggest to delete this article. This is not an AfD. It was already kept as a notable expression. Mikheyev v. Russia is about a court case, but this article is about an expression/term. These things are obviously different. Thus, no merging.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a vote to delete the article. This is a vote which version of the same article to keep. Obviously we can not keep both versions which would violate WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - it is not demonstrated that the term is of notable circulation outside of the context of this case. Heck, every otdelenie militsyi has its favorite inside joke terms about how they beat shit out of you. - 7-bubёn >t 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because this term is not widely known. BTW how did they called such torture during Eltsyn's regime? Or why they would call to Putin in Medvedev's times? Tortures of course exist, but this name is strange.
  • Support to merge per discussion. A single event is reported -- it's overuse of our responsibility to report about whole phenomena citing only a single case. ellol (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ellol. KNewman (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on the move

[edit]
I know that you are just trying to be unreasonable here. But I will try to discuss it with you nonetheless for I hope that you are not just trying to piss everyone off on purpose. There is not reason to involve an admin here for one simple reason. There is nothing to merge. There is no history of edits worth preserving unless you want to preserve the history of your edit wars. There is nothing here to move to Mikheyev v. Russia as everything is already there. The archived discussion above showed consensus of reasonable editors and your dissent. Do not tell us what else to do. Instead, I would have to tell you to stop edit warring here. (Igny (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phone call to Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phone_call_to_Putin&oldid=1200555331"